United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JEFFREY S. HAYNES, Plaintiff,
BULLER BRYAN et al., Defendants.
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action
brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A;
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read
Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim against Defendants Bryan and
Mulaix. The Court will serve the complaint against Defendants
Williams, Page and Bien.
Jeffrey S. Haynes presently is incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Ionia Correctional
Facility. The actions about which he complains, however,
occurred while he was housed at the Michigan Reformatory
(RMI) and the Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF). Plaintiff
sues the following Defendants: RMI Nurse Buller Bryan; RMI
Dr. Schnuggerow Williams; MCF Nurse Barber Mulaix; MCF Nurse
(unknown) Page; and MCF Physician Assistant (PA) (unknown)
alleges that he contacted health care on March 7, 11, 17, and
26, 2013, as well as April 1 and 4, 2013, complaining about
the inadequacy of pain medication he was being provided for
the treatment of ankle pain that resulted from a serious
operation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bryan would never
place Plaintiff on a list to be seen by the doctor. Plaintiff
was not given an appointment to see the medical practitioner
until other nurses responded to his grievances. Plaintiff
complains that he was denied care for over 30 days, which he
contends violated prison policy and the Due Process Clause,
as well as the Eighth Amendment.
26, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a request to be seen by the
medical provider about being prescribed a cane. Defendant
Nurse Mulaix refused to allow Plaintiff to see the doctor,
because, she opined, “a cane will not help
plaintiff[']s situation . . . .” (Compl, ECF No. 1,
PageID.5.) Plaintiff alleges that the response ignored his
continuing pain, which resulted from a broken screw that
remained in his ankle bone. He further contends that
Defendant Mulaix was not qualified to make the determination
that he did not need a cane. Plaintiff contends that Mulaix
was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
alleges that, on June 2, 2014, he requested stronger pain
medication, because his pain regimen of Naproxen, Depakote
and Tylenol were not adequate to provide pain relief.
Defendant Dr. Williams responded to the request on June 10,
2014. In denying a change to pain medications, Defendant Dr.
Williams noted that Plaintiff previously had received
prescription shoes, a cane, and an ankle brace and that he
had been on a variety of pain regimens. Defendant Williams
also noted that Plaintiff was scheduled for a follow-up with
the medical provider that same day and was “also
scheduled for ankle hardware removal in the near
future.” (Id. (emphasis omitted)). Plaintiff
complains that Williams was deliberately indifferent to his
situation, because he did not change the medication,
notwithstanding the fact that the broken screw was never
removed, even as of the date the complaint was drafted, in
November 2016. Plaintiff alleges that he remains in ongoing
next complains that, on July 22, 2014, Defendant Nurse Page
refused to bring Plaintiff's medications to his cell,
despite knowing that Plaintiff was on a medical lay-in as a
result of an operation on his ankle on July 17, 2014.
Defendant claimed that the discharge instructions allowed
Plaintiff to bear weight with the use of crutches, as
tolerated, despite cautioning against excessive activity and
stairs. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Page disregarded
Plaintiff's own claims that his pain was too severe to
walk down the hall, partly because the medication
distribution occurred when his earlier pain medication was
wearing off. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Page was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. He also
alleges that Page was the only nurse who refused to bring his
medication to the cell and that Page did so in retaliation
for Plaintiff's numerous grievances.
final set of allegations, Plaintiff alleges that, on November
19, 2014, after Plaintiff had been transferred to MCF,
Defendant PA Bien refused to submit a special accommodation
notice to Lansing that would authorize Plaintiff to receive
special shoes. Defendant Bien also took the special shoes
that had previously been ordered for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
asserts that the shoes had been recommended by a therapist
and authorized by a doctor, and Defendant PA Bien lacked the
authority under prison policy to remove the accommodation
without an examination by a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that
Bien's conduct constituted deliberate indifference to his
serious medical need.
relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the issuance
of adequate pain medication, as well as compensatory and
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement, ' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - but it has not ‘show[n]' - that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill
v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding
that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies
to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
statutes of limitations and tolling principles apply to
determine the timeliness of claims asserted under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268-69
(1985). For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under §
1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10); Carroll v.
Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam);
Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at
*1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999). Accrual of the claim for relief,
however, is a question of federal law. Collyer v.
Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996); Sevier v.
Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. ...